duduspace1 said:
1. You write a lot but don't really make much sense and it seems you now read but can't understand. We were talking about extrapolations from previous prices and not the actual prices themselves or can you kindly rephrase your reasoning behind extrapolating the price of GoW from the development costs of GoW 3 again ???
No where did I say the cost of development is meaningless, my point was that you have to expand the context of cost and its effect on price to incorporate 'Total Cost' which includes the cost of marketing (as was done in the Wikipedia page). I mentioned nothing about Pikmin or CoD, not sure if you heard that in some alternative reality. Also did you notice this section in the link you posted ?
Please note: These figures are not adjusted for inflation. Also, development or marketing costs does not represent the total cost of the game. Non-development or marketing costs have been labeled.
And yes, logic would tell any reasonable person that the only reason Nintendo will not show up on a list dating back to 1982 and includes Sega and Atari is because Nintendo doesn't release its costs of development into the public domain except that individual is a chronic fanboy.
2. No Sir, I tell you that because your so called 'mini games' could not have achieved that hence there is a premium for allowing that kind of creativity via consoles by opening up the inner workings of 'Consoles' that previously only allowed mashing of buttons to move objects on screen and never went beyond what the maker of the software wanted it to do to the ordinary every day person or kid. I believe you already know that Labo has already been demonstrated to go above and beyond music Do you understand that now ?
3. On the contrary I do not, it is you who have brought these irrelevant strawman arguments I didn't make into a discussion about an accusation you made (or supported) that Labo is overpriced. I have never said GoW or CoD (or any other game you can think of) did not justify their price, only you have made such sweeping statements and now seem to have a difficulty backtracking from it and I seriously can't help you on that point. All I have said is that you have not given me the 'Actual cost' of making the last GoW and getting it into the hands of the public.
My point has always been that you cannot judge Labo by putting it next to an AAA game like GoW and then saying it shouldn't cost as much or more because it doesn't look as beautiful and didn't use the same level of animation or graphic fidelity as GoW. That is indeed a very narrow way of judging what goes into the pricing of games. Some place a premium on graphics, others say they'd rather watch an Ultra HD movie instead and focus on game play and neither perspective is wrong or right. If it is not for you, it is not for you, don't go raining on it just because it doesn't fit your own perspective of what you consider to be quality.
|
